Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I know there is a fundimental conflict built into any game, that is the human desire to win, and no rule can ever really correct that tendency. Given a path that results in a win, 95% of folks will go down that path. The remaining 5% will argue that you shouldn't be able to win like that. It is very difficult to convince 95% with 5%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I am seeing a trend here that counter attacking is a key part of conducting a successful defense. My fight in China is going pretty well and I have launched an number of deliberate attacks as well as many bombardment attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Yes I know. The key to defending Changsa is to shock attack on the turn the enemy gets there. Under 1.3 it was easy to retreat the Jap forces unless they massed their entire force. Under 1.4 I have around 10 units with 100 prep so I really don't think a direct ausault is possible. You can try but if I retreat 10 Jap divisions in one battle its a whole new war.

Japan has to use a more indirect route and try to envelope the base and various tactics can be used to combat this option. Most allied players don't know about the effectness of chinese shock attacks but those who do can be very dangerous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Your not fooling me. It is not that you must go to China to win. (or are you saying that you admit you have lost the Pacific war but still want to weasel a victory from the game.)
There are points in the Pacific just like in China only the game is designed to make you fight for them.
Should the easy way be the correct way to win the game? Can you lose the battles with the USA and still win the game?
If you think so we disagree.

Chunking is worth how much? Noumea is worth how much? One objective actually is in the Pacific and will preserve the Empire the other is meaningless. (Of course you might lose the battle. Thats what the game is all about. If you can win and not fight the USA and win don't you think something is wrong with how you are winning?)

• Make it harder to move units out of Manchukuo by land. This is simply closing a loophole in the game mechanics.
  
• Change the game so that if a Chinese city is under-garrisoned by the Japanese then it may eventually revert to Chinese control with a free partisan/militia unit appearing there as well.
  
• Add large STATIC units to many Chinese cities, to represent private armies and/or forces that would be raised and committed to the defence of the interior of China. They should be static to avoid the unrealistic possibility of the China player using these forces to roll Japanese forces into the sea.
  
• Add a small amount of daily supply to more Chinese cities to offset the increased OOB (static units).
  

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

The edge of the map theory cuts both ways. Perhaps the Germans weren't goihg to invade Great Britiain by 1942. So what? They were a stones throw from defeating Russia in January 1942. A Japanese knife in the Russians back would likely have changed the course of that part of the war. The bulk of Zhukov's counteratttacking forces in early 1942 had been withdrawn from the far east. Furthermore, the Japanese didn't push very hard in China, why penalize a player who does? Why is it legit to invade the U.S., but not to defeat China? If you want partisans to tie down Japanese forces put them into the game. Finally, the concept that the game accurately portraits the airwar in dec 1941 - mid 1942 is goofy. Chinese fighters regularly whacking the Japanese airforce is ahistorical. B-17's carpet bombing in mar 1942 is ahistorical. Zeroes that can't hold their own against P-40's is ahistorical. B-17E's had an effective range of 500 nm (Freeman, B-17 Flying Fortress at War), they put non-self-sealing tanks in the bomb bay to extend the range out to 700+ miles.

quote:

I appears to me you want the combat system changed to produce more loss for the attacker. But you also still want the Japanese to be capable of outright defeat of China.

quote:

The game is not about the German-Soviet War it is about the Japanese war in the Pacific. So any Japanese player who attacks the Soviets in the winter of 41-42 is exploiting the game.

quote:

Gee Boer..., the way you put it the Axis must have won WWII. As I recall it, General Winter and Marshall Zhukov already had
the Germans falling back before December 7th. And the Japanese were no more prepared to wage offensive warfare in Siberia
in mid-winter than the Germans had been. You'll note that none of their earlier military attempts in this theatre were made in
the winter..., and they were still stomped flat.

quote:

And "the Japanese didn't push very hard in China"? Wow! Makes you wonder what they had been doing there since 1937? Of
course these efforts had to weaken when they decided to take on the rest of the world in December 1941...., the Japanese Econ-
omy simply couldn't support that kind of effort. But one of the major reasons the Japanese cite for wanting to expand their war
was to cut the Chinese off from outside aide----which they blamed for their growing lack of success against China during 1940-41.
Chinese fighters did enjoy success against unescorted Japanese bombers during the Sino-Japanese War, which was one of the
reasons longer range was a design requirement for the Zero. And with the advent of a wider war, the Chinese airforce was left
facing Nates and Claudes---neither of which were outstanding. [\quote]

You make my point. The Zero was clearly superior to any Chinese fighter and the Nate / Oscar should be able to hold their own with the chinese fighters. I'm not seeing that in any of the pbem games I'm playing. Nates/Oscars have no chance in the game against anything other than Dutch Brewsters. That is with 99 morale and 65-80 training levels.

quote:

While I would agree that "carpet bombing" was not a feature of the Pacific Campaign's earlier years, I can't say I remember
there being anything like the hundreds of 4-engined "heavies" available at this time to conduct a "carpet bombing" effort either.
And how well any fighter does against any other has a lot to do with readiness, morale, training, and positional advantage.
Blanket statements that "this" should always beat "that" are meaningless out of context.

Once again you make my point. In the game WITP by Mar/ Apr 1942 the allies can have B-17's in sufficient numbers to conduct carpet bombing raids. My pbem opponent is able to hit Guadalcanal with 90+ B-17's and 40-50 B-24's while simulataneously hitting Port Morsby with 80-90 B-17's. This is game fact and historical fiction.

The point of my post was that there are alot of ahistorical situations in the game, why select the only one that works to the advantage of Japan for repair? As a game WITP is currently fairly well balanced. Keep fiddling and it will be pointless to play as Japan, it will be just as impossible to gain a points victory as it is to gain outright victory.

(in reply to mogami)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Its all about the combat system. With the current OOB China has quite enough units to stop Japan with a more adequate ground combat system. You have 72 Corps for heavens sake.

Just keep on adding Chinese units and this theater will truly be broken as the Chinese will use this flawed system to drive Japan out of Russia in early 43.

When I start that AAR are you going to tell me its gamey to use the Chinese forces to attack. Or are you going to create a rule that forbids Chinese units from crossing the russian border. Or perhaps create a bunch of Chinese units that are unable to leave specific cities.

Why is the solution to forbid players from doing things that were possible instead of just making the game work properly. Players should be able to invade India or Austrailia if they want. They game should just be designed so these operations entail a reasonable cost.



Interesting that in all of my ranting I still find no one who will directly defend the ground combat system.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!